ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ. ** οὐκ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ· εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη, ἄρα Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν.

Various Readings in ii. 5.

The reading which is given in the text, ois oùdè πpòs pav, is doubtless correct. Two variations however occur, which deserve notice.

1. The omission of oudé.

(1) The

Found in most texts.

The negative is found in all the Greek uncial Mss (i. e. in NABCEF negative. GKLP) except D, in which however it is inserted by a later hand, and apparently in all or nearly all the Greek cursive Mss. It is expressly mentioned by the Ambrosian Hilary1 and by Jerome, as the reading of the Greek copies. It is found also in the Gothic, Memphitic, Thebaic, both Syriac and other versions, and was unquestionably the original reading of the Vulgate, as it appears in all the best manuscripts of this version. It was read moreover by Marcion3, Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius', Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, the Pseudo-Ignatius, and perhaps also by Origen, among the Greeks; and by Ambrose, Augustines, Jerome, Pelagius (in his text, though he comments on the other reading), and Primasius, among the Latins.

On the other hand, it is omitted in D (both Greek and Latin), and in the Latin of E; and the text is read without it by the translator of Irenæus, by Tertullian 10, Victorinus, the Ambrosian Hilary, Pelagius (in his commentary), and apparently Sulpicius Severus ". We have it moreover on the authority of Jerome 12, of Primasius 13, and of Sedulius 14, that the negative was not found in the Latin copies, and the same is implied by the language of the Ambrosian Hilary.

In the face of this testimony, the statement of Victorinus, that it was Omitted in omitted 'in plurimis codicibus et Latinis et Graecis,' is not worthy of credit. some few. He may indeed have found the omission in some Greek мs or other, but even this is doubtful. No stress can be laid on the casual statement of a writer so loose and so ignorant of Greek.

It appears from these facts that the omission is due to some Western Omission MS or Mss alone. The author of the Old Latin version used one of these. traced to the Old And to the Old Latin version all or nearly all the existing authorities for Latin. the omission may be traced. Its absence in the Greek text of D is an exception, unless the charge of Latinising sometimes brought against this

Tertullian's charge against Marcion.

Omission how ac

counted for.

Ms can be substantiated. Irenæus is also to be accounted for, but in this case the omission may perhaps be ascribed not to the author himself, but to his translator.

A correction however would appear to have been made in that recension which was circulated in North Italy, for the negative is found both in Ambrose and in Augustine, the former of whom used the 'Itala' as a matter of course, and the latter by choice1.

Tertullian indeed accuses Marcion of interpolating the negative; but no weight attaches to his assertion. The African father, not finding it in his own Latin copy and finding it in Marcion's recension, caught at what appeared the simplest way of accounting for the variation. He would not stop to consider whether his own copy was correct. It was enough for him that the text with the negative was more favourable to Marcion's peculiar views than without it. Tertullian makes no appeal to мss or external authority of any kind. He argues solely on grounds of internal evidence.

The omission in the first instance is not easily accounted for. It may have been an oversight. Or possibly the Latin translator, or the transcriber of the MSS which he used, intentionally left it out, thinking, as some later critics thought, that the sense of the passage or the veracity of the Apostle required the omission. At all events the expedient of dropping the negative, as a means of simplifying the sense, is characteristic of the Latin copies. For other instances in St Paul see Gal. v. 8, Rom. v. 14, I Cor. v. 6, [Col. ii. 18]: comp. Joh. vi. 64, ix. 272.

The omission once made, arguments were not wanting to support it. Tertullian found that the negative vitiated the sense of the passage. He objected to it moreover as at variance with history, which showed that St Paul did yield on occasions, in circumcising Timothy for instance, and in paying the expenses of those who had taken Nazarite vows. The same arguments are brought forward by Victorinus and the Ambrosian Hilary3. With much greater justice Jerome maintains that it is required for the sense. But feeble as were his reasons, doubtless the authority of Tertullian, and the prejudice thus raised against this as the reading of Marcion, were fatal to its reception with many who otherwise would have conformed to the Greek text.

It is not uninteresting to observe how little influence this important various reading has had on the interpretation of the passage. The omission or insertion of oudé might have been expected to decide for or against the circumcision of Titus. This however is not the case. The Latin Fathers, who left out the negative, generally maintained that he was not circumcised. Several modern critics, who retain it, hold that he was.

2. The omission of ois.

1 De Doctr. Christ. c. 15.

2 For these references I am indebted to Reiche Comm. Crit. II. p. 13.

3 Litterae enim hoc indicant quia cessit, et historia factum exclamat.' The passage is based on Tertullian.

4 So Victorinus and the Ambrosian

Hilary. This is also the opinion of Tertullian (adv. Marc. v. 3), if I understand him rightly: though Baur,Paulus p. 122, interprets him differently. The only exception that I have remarked is Pelagius, who however has not the same reading in the text as in the notes.

The relative is omitted in some few texts which retain oudé, and (2) The relative. retained in some few which want ovdé; but for the most part the two are omitted or retained together. Here again the Greek texts are as unanimous as in the former case. The obvious motive of this omission is the improvement of the grammar by the removal of a redundant word.

This assumed necessity of altering the text somehow, in order to correct the grammar, may have been the first step towards the more important omission of the negative.

The later visit of St Paul to Jerusalem.

Acts xv.

The later of the two visits to Jerusalem mentioned in the Epistle has The same from the earliest times been identified with the visit recorded in Acts xv. with the visit of This view is taken by Irenæus 1, the first writer who alludes to the subject; and though it has not escaped unchallenged either in ancient or modern days, the arguments in its favour are sufficiently strong to resist the pressure of objections to which it is fairly exposed3.

favour of

I. In support of this view may be urged the positive argument from Arguthe striking coincidence of circumstances, and the negative argument from ments in the difficulty of finding any equally probable solution, or indeed any pro- this view. bable solution at all besides.

tive.

(i) The later visit of the Galatian Epistle coincides with the third visit (i) Posiof the Acts, when the so-called Apostolic Council was held, in all the most Coinciimportant features. The geography is the same. In both narratives the dence of communications take place between Jerusalem and Antioch: in both the circumhead-quarters of the false brethren are at the former place, their machina- stances. tions are carried on in the latter: in both the Gentile Apostles go up to Jerusalem apparently from Antioch, and return thence to Antioch again. The time is the same, or at least not inconsistent. St Paul places the event 15 or 16 years after his conversion: St Luke's narrative implies that they

1 Iren. iii. 13. 3 'Si quis igitur diligenter ex Actibus Apostolorum scrutetur tempus de quo scriptum est, Ascendi Hierosolymam, propter praedictam quaestionem, inveniet eos, qui praedicti sunt a Paulo, annos concurrentes etc.' So also apparently Tertullian, adv. Marc. v. 2, 3.

This visit is placed after the third in the Acts by Chrysostom, but not further defined. It is identified with the fifth by Epiphanius Haer. xxviii. 4, p. 112. The Chron. Pasch. (I. p. 435 sq. ed. Dind.) places it after the incidents of Acts xiii. 1-3, and before those of Acts xv, thus apparently interpolating it between the second and third

visits of the Acts.

The view adopted is that of most recent critics. It is well maintained by Schott, De Wette, Conybeare and Howson, Jowett, and others. The arguments in favour of the second visit of the Acts are best stated by Fritzsche Opusc. p. 223 8q. The fourth visit of the Acts finds its ablest champion in Wieseler, Galat. p. 553 sq. The fifth visit has been abandoned by modern critics, as the epistle was clearly written before that time. Some few, e.g. Paley Horae Paulinae ch. v. no. 10, suppose this to be a journey to Jerusalem omitted in the Acts.

took place about the year 511. The persons are the same: Paul and Barnabas appear as the representatives of the Gentile Churches, Cephas and James as the leaders of the Circumcision. The agitators are similarly described in the two accounts: in the Acts, as converted Pharisees who had imported their dogmas into the Christian Church; in the Epistle, as false brethren who attempt to impose the bondage of the law on the Gentile converts. The two Apostles of the Gentiles are represented in both accounts as attended: 'certain other Gentiles' (è aurŵv) are mentioned by St Luke; Titus, a Gentile, is named by St Paul. The subject of dispute is the same; the circumcision of the Gentile converts. The character of the conference is in general the same; a prolonged and hardfought contest2. The result is the same; the exemption of the Gentiles from the enactments of the law, and the recognition of the Apostolic commission of Paul and Barnabas by the leaders of the Jewish Church.

A combination of circumstances so striking is not likely to have occurred twice within a few years.

(ii) Nega- (ii) Nor indeed can this visit be identified with any other recorded in tive. St Luke. It has been taken by some for instance for the second visit of Difficulty of other the Acts. To this supposition the date alone is fatal. The second visit of solutions. the Acts synchronizes, or nearly so3, with the persecution and death of Herod, which latter event happened in the year 44. But at least 12 or 13, probably 15 or 16 years, had elapsed since St Paul's conversion, before he paid the visit in question. And no system of chronology at all probable will admit of so early a date for his conversion as would thus be required. But again, according to the narrative of the Acts St Paul's Apostolic mission commenced after the second visit, whereas the account in the Epistle

This is calculated by a back reckoning of the time spent from the Apostolic Council to the appointment of Festus, the date of which is fixed independently at A.D. 60; see Wieseler Chronol. p. 66 sq.

2 St Luke's notices are, xv. 2 yevoμένης στάσεως καὶ ζητήσεως οὐκ ὀλί γης τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τῷ Βαρνάβα πρὸς αὐτούς, at Antioch ; xv. 5 ἐξανέστησαν dé Tives, at Jerusalem before the congress; ΣΤ. η πολλῆς δὲ ζητήσεως γενομévns, at Jerusalem at the congress.

3 The order of events in St Luke's narrative is as follows; (1) the notice of St Paul's setting out from Antioch for Jerusalem, xi. 30; (2) the persecution of Herod, the death of James, and the imprisonment and escape of Peter, xii. 1-19; (3) the death of Herod, and the spread of the word, xii. 20-24; (4) St Paul's business at Jerusalem and his departure thence, xii. 25. The narrative itself suggests the motive of this

order, which is not directly chronological. Having mentioned in (1) St Paul's mission to Jerusalem, the writer is led in (2) to describe the condition of the Church there, κατ' ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρόν. This obliges him to pass on to (3) in order to show that God defeated the purposes of man, the persecutor dy. ing ignominiously, and the persecuted Church continuing to flourish. He then resumes the subject of (1) in (4). Thus it may be assumed, I think, that the Church was suffering from Herod's persecutions when St Paul arrived, but not that Herod was already dead. In other words, the chronological order was probably (2), (1), (4), (3).

4 His career as an Apostle commences with Acts xiii. He had before this held a subordinate place, and his preaching had been confined to Damascus (ix. 22), Jerusalem (ix. 28), and the neighbourhood of Tarsus and Antioch (ix. 30, xi. 25 sq.; comp. also Gal. i. 21).